Posted on 10/28/2011 6:51:44 PM PDT by Kaslin
Media: Does the Washington Post ever consult a dictionary? In what looks like an effort to lasso Republican Sen. Marco Rubio's rising star, they've built a shoddy two-story attack on a faulty definition of "exile."
It started Oct. 20 when, on the front page, the Post headlined, "Marco Rubio's compelling family story embellishes facts, documents show." The hit piece, by Manuel Roig-Franzia, cited Rubio's repeated self-reference as the "son of exiles," saving the "Gotcha!" for the second paragraph:
"The documents show that Rubio's parents came to the United States and were admitted for permanent residence more than two-and-a-half years before Castro's forces overthrew the Cuban government and took power on New Year's Day 1959."
There followed a lengthy story in which the Reaganesque Rubio, elected in 2009 from Florida and already touted as a 2012 vice presidential contender, fell back on an explanation that he'd been relying on family lore while solidifying his identity with Cuban-American voters.
"They were from Cuba," retorted an indignant Rubio. "They wanted to live in Cuba again. They tried to live in Cuba again, and the reality of what it was made that impossible."
Rubio's looser account, based on oral family history, is verifiable, if foggy in a manner familiar to amateur genealogists, but didn't seem to register as Roig-Franzia went about creating a portrait of the rising GOP star as a mendacious fabricator. Weirdly, he was able to build the story only on a top-line definition of "exile."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...
“GO RUBIO”!
I’m sorry, but two wrongs do not make a right. I could not and will not vote for a ticket that has anyone on it that is not Constitutional eligible.
I agree that he is a citizen, just not a Natural Born Citizen as required by the Constitution for President or Vice President.
I respect and admire Rubio, but that does not make him eligible and I will not vote for a Presidential ticket that has him on it.
The 12th amendment says that you can’t be vice-president
if you are not eligable to be president.
Where was this line-by-line fact-checking in 2008?
If Obama can sit in the White House, fine he can sit in the White House, many people can sit in the White House. That does not make them president. Obama was not qualified to serve as president and is not now president nor will he ever be president. Having been sworn in, living in the White House and being addressed as MR President by numerous fools is immaterial. He does not qualify, there for he is not President.
They are thinking of refugees rather than exiles.
Lets face it, there is no clear definition of natural born.
If there was Obama should have been disqualified. But since he never was in 3 years, the precedent has been set, like it or not.
There is a very clear definition of natural born citizen in Minor V Happersett and the findings there are cited in at least twenty five other supreme court cases. Those who insist that it is not clear are attempting to obfuscate the issue.
Someone committing a crime that they are not immediately charged with does not set a precedent.
Let us try this again. A murder is committed, the perp is not identified for five years. Your thinking would be that a precedent was set and now murder can be committed at will without consequences. Do you see the conundrum? Obama has not set a precedent.
there is a clear definition of natural born and Obama should have been disqualified. All those complicit in failing to disqualify him should spend time in prison.
We need Marco Rubio on the GOP Ticket.
"The Republican Party needs to be the pro-legal immigration party," said Mr. Rubio. "We need to say, 'We believe in immigration and we think it's good for America.' But it has to be orderly, a system based on law, a system that works." He notes that people in Florida welcome Canadians who winter in their state and that farmers need agricultural workers.But his positions on immigration policies may be a hindrance. He opposes a path to citizenship for illegal aliens and opposes the Dream Act, which would provide a chance for some undocumented youth to become legal.
What’s that mean?
Wouldn’t it have been informative to know that Senator Rubio opposes amnesty?
Th e title of the article is “The ‘Stop Rubio’ Movement Starts”.
TomGuy posted the link to the other article.
I read that thread, but didn’t comment. If that thread is meant to help “take Rubio down,” it should work, because Rubio has always been against amnesty.
Calling for a more civil tone in order to attract LEGAL Latino voters, doesn’t seem out of line to me, although I do not know to whom in the GOP he was referencing.
LOL, there was no such thing as an anchor baby back in the fifties. The lefties had not gotten full control of the government at that time. Look up operation wetback,
My oldest brother was born to an underage american woman, he was killed in action in WWII, you take your underage BS and stick it where the sun don’t shine.
I agree. It was shocking to read some of the comments about him. One says he’s like “Hillery.”
RLY? I left that thread. Emotional outbursts do nothing for me. Senator Rubio comports himself very well. He’s popular and good for the GOP. I think he’s a conservative on all or most of the issues. Seems like some people are prone to nitpick. I met several FL FReepers and they are both proud of him and satisfied with him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.